Talk:Esperanto profanity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Constructed languages / Esperanto  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Esperanto task force.

Origin of kaco[edit]

"kaco, 'cock' in the sense of 'penis', borrowed from the Germanic languages". Cazzo is the Italian word for "cock", but I don't know of any Germanic language whose word for "cock" sounds like that. —Angr 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Profanity or Euphemism?[edit]

The article mentions the word "seksumi". I would regard this as a reasonably polite euphemism and therefore out of the scope of the article. In the same way that an English person might use the term "having sex" to describe the sexual act, as opposed to a stronger word such as "shagging" or "f*cking", and certainly instead of a precise but medical/archaic word such as "coitus" or "intercourse" (itself a euphemism, intercourse meaning conversation). To get back to discussion of Esperanto - words containing -um- tend to be highly context-dependent, and ought only to be used where a more precise example does not exist - or when someone wishes to avoid the more precise word out of politeness or some other reason (poetic licence, innuendo etc). Which is not to deny, that some expressions such as "butikumi" (to go shopping) are widely understood, but these are few in number. Rugxulo (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

'fendon' translation[edit]

This word in the poem cited in note 11 litterally means "crack" or "fissure." Rendering it as "nether parts" is unnecessarily euphemistic, and does not aid in the undersanding of the original poem. The original has nothing in it at this point that refers to "parts", "nether", "lower" or anything similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)